Comments on: The TerraPass Farce

By: Josh

Josh — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 15:47:10 +0000

I love the idea of buying carbon credits and this site is a good one. I recently purchased a small personal solar system so that I can be slightly less reliant on the grid and it cost me about 550 bucks to get a reliable setup going. I cannot afford to purchase a new car and terrapass gives me a great and cheap way to atleast help me to reduce my carbon emmissions.

By: Nick

Nick — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:34:41 +0000

What of the claims that Terrapass et. al. claim 100% of the energy offsets from projects wherein they have provided less than 100% of the funding? I read it about 5 months ago; I’ll provide a link when I find it again.

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 23:26:39 +0000

Michael: If one of these efforts actually lead to the elimination of all kerosene use, that would be a hell of an accomplishment. Nothing wrong with that.

Agreed that we should personally work to reduce our usage, but reducing and offsetting are not mutually exclusive.

By: Michael Holdcroft

Michael Holdcroft — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 13:45:47 +0000

There's a similar organisation where you can pay a price to offset the ecological effects of airline travel. Sure, the money gets put to good use in helping to develop and promote "green" projects, but the main problem is not negated by doing that. I wonder what we will do once all the kerosene has been used up? Personally, I believe we should be more aware of things each of us can do to help reduce our influence on the world such as An easy way to reduce your personal CO2 footprint. We should all look at what we do in our daily lives. There is room for improvement in almost everything we do.

By: 2Wheels Good

2Wheels Good — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 22:19:51 +0000

I am a terrapass subscriber (renewed once so far) and recently added carbon offsets for my family’s recent plane flights and our annual home energy use. Also I bike or bus to work 95 percent of the time, drive a hybrid car as my primary vehicle (averaging 60 mpg, btw), air dry our clean clothes naturally outdoors, use a manual push mower, open my windows to avoid AC use, use water saving and energy saving washer and refrigerator, recycle, upgraded home windows to low-e Energy Star certified type, etc etc. I tell you it is a process of waste reduction that we continue to move forward on over time.
Anyway, I researched Terrapass carefully and think they offer a valuable way to offset what I can’t –yet– reduce of my carbon footprint — which the calculators I have consulted online indicate to me my Carbon Footprint is already much lower than average. I would venture to say that the average Terrapass subscriber is most likely _not_ the stereotyped energy hog at all.
Subscribers to Terrapass benefit from an e-newsletter that provides energy saving information we can use in our own life choices to help reduce our carbon footprints.
I do agree with the original post which asserted that what I’m actually doing is how folks should approach this matter. We live by example, however we act in this regard. No, I’m not perfect and don’t claim to be. I’m continuing to seek other opportunities to save energy and to someday hopefully to create some local, distributed (terrorist-resistant), renewable, sustainable energy such as wind and solar on my urban home property.
I do think the claim of vitriol asserted above may have had some truth in it, because who doesn’t love a controversy! However the evidence of human-induced global warming continues to be overwhelming. And the research on carbon offsets and Terrapass, which I have done, showed me that Terrapass seems to be doing a good job. They invest in tangible green energy projects, as well as some carbon credits which are retired; they scrupulously avoid any double counting that could result as a side-effect of their investments. The Green-E certified aspect of it also gives me extra confidence that a third party audit approach is validating whati is obviously still an innovation in the US market.

My complaint about the current system is the status quo dependence on unsustainable fossil fuels remains highly subsidized by our government at all levels, making most folks miss the true higher cost of this behavior both now and in the future. The piper’s coming, and the time to reduce carbon emissions is now.

By: sugarpiggy

sugarpiggy — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:12:26 +0000

Here is an article that those of us considering the benefits of carbon free credits might find useful: (adavance apologies inserted here for any unintended vitriol)

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f355-11db-9845-000b5df10621.html

By: sugarpiggy

sugarpiggy — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 22:38:57 +0000

You will have to excuse my ignorance as i am new to the world of blogging and am not really sure exactly what I wrote that was considered vitriol. Actually, when i read the posts by Mark I cannot seem to identify vitriol either, just someone’s honest opinion on an interesting topic. To me Mark’s opinion seemed supported by some well thougth out arguement thereby saving it from the tag of “vitriol” which is simply unsupported ad hominum ranting.I think that the subjects of global warming and terra passes are fascinating views into human behavior and love to discuss them but certainly do not want to be offensive. Therefore, if you could clear up this small matter of identifying “vitriol” i could better know how to behave within the group.

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:41:05 +0000

I’ll second Chris: the vitriol is not welcome.

By: Chris Wooster

Chris Wooster — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:34:58 +0000

I agree that the whole slam on TerraPass seems a bit overdone, Mark. You have to believe that anyone who would throw money at a company like this would probably already be doing other things as well.

“Neutralizing” your carbon is probably a goal few of us could achieve without reverting to a cave, a diet of water and rocks, and going naked while we walk everywhere.

But the end shouldn’t be what we analyze. It’s the means.

And this, perhaps among many things (you list some), seems to be “something” to do. The whole term “offset” seems to suggest anyone who does this is doing it only to make themselves feel better about their burping CO2 out their tailpipes. But I think the truth is that many of us see this as yet another thing to add to our TTD lists. CF bulbs. Bikes. LEVs. Reducing waste. etc. etc. etc.

Heck, if our governments are slow to begin financing this kind of research then I applaud ANYONE driving around with one of these stickers on their ride. At least they’ve committed some bucks toward addressing it.

It’s your blog. It’s your opinion. You’re the kingpin here. But I’d ratchet back the vitriol a bit and aim your firepower at more deserving targets, eh?

By: sugarpiggy

sugarpiggy — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:37:03 +0000

Sorry, should have done a spell check on that last post. Let me resend it:
Ah, after one month, a response, how nice. I’m sorry you felt my post was rude. It certainly wasn’t meant that way. I was simply juxtaposing our use of energy with our paurchase of stickers that say we promote energy use reduction or our use of “dirty” energy” with our purchase of stickers that promote the use of “clean energy” To me it is an interesting phenomenon. Sort of like a form of sticker herapy for energy addicts. If I asked you whether you use a drier or a clothesline, open-windows or air-conditioning, push mower or gas powered mower, what would you answer? All these energy alternatives are certainly affordable, they are also personal choices. i am not stating that you should or shouldn’t make either of them, just that the choice is in your power to make. Al Gore would certainly approve of the lower energy consumption choice, although he himself will choose the stickers. All judgement aside, it is an interesting phenomenon

By: sugarpiggy

sugarpiggy — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:31:05 +0000

Ah, after one month, a response, how nice. I’m sorry you felt my post was rude. It certainly wasn;t meant that way. I was simply juxtaposing our use of energy with our paurchase of stickers that say we promote energy use reduction or our use of “dirty” energy” with our purchase of stickers that promote the use of “clean energy” To me it is an interesting phenomenon. Sort of like a from of sticker herapy for energy addicts. If I asked you whether you use a drier or a clothesline, open-windows or air-conditioning, push mower or gas powered mower, what would you answer? All these energy alternatives are certainly affordable, they are also personal choices. i am not stating that you should or should make either of them, just that the choice is in your power to make. Al Gore would certainly approve of the lower energy consumptoi choice, although he himself will choose the stickers. All judgement aside, it is an interesting phenomenon.

By: Simon

Simon — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:17:58 +0000

I have to say I found this post overly aggressive in the standard “rudeness garners attention” rules of the blogosphere.

You’re not quite sure if you’re mad at Terrapass because of their ad slogan (which read pedantically would imply that they only fund carbon sequestering and not emissions reduction), because you think that instead of funding Terrapass projects people should junk their car and purchase a new one with slightly better mileage (rather problematic for many reasons), or because you have some strange personal animus against the customers you imagine Terrapass to serve.

As a datapoint, I’m a new Terrapass customer brought here by googling the company to see if they’re for real. As should be trivially obvious (but useful to ignore in a rant) Terrapass is not the be-all-end-all of environmental action. But as a cyclist who doesn’t own a car but who has to fly upwards of ten domestic roundtrips a year, I’ve found it a nice way to contribute to solutions, and as a gift, a nice way to contribute to consciousness raising at the same time.

By: sugarpiggy

sugarpiggy — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 13:24:06 +0000

Perhaps it would clear the whole thing up if they were just called “alternative energy supports” and weren’t linked at all with people’s existing energy consumption habits. Then the confusion over whether or not buying support for alternative energy (or carbon based energy forms like garbage dump methane gas) actually had anything at all to do with individual choices to use carbon producing energy. In other words, financially supporting clean energy has nothing to do with your own choice not to cut back on your own dirty energy usage. They are two totally seperate issues. The irony comes in when you try to excuse one with the other. Then you just look foolish.

By: Geoffrey Gowan

Geoffrey Gowan — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 00:00:35 +0000

You don’t have to eliminate all activities that generate CO2. It makes sense to optimize in the areas that yield the greatest CO2 reduction per dollar invested. If you only have X dollars to spend, it’s best to spend that money in the way that will provide the greatest benefit. Riding a bike is a great idea, but it doesn’t mean that these other ways of reducing CO2 output are invalid. The distinctions you make sound pretty irrelevant to me.

By: TalkChess.com :: View topic - The TerraPass Farce--Another Dufus Liberal Scheme

TalkChess.com :: View topic - The TerraPass Farce--Another Dufus Liberal Scheme — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 12:07:42 +0000

[...] http://txfx.net/2006/01/16/the-terrapass-farce/ Have you ever wondered why liberals are such convoluted bastards? Harry Truman_________________Man is an ape who is easily confused. God is an infinitely variable Constant. Man marks his ground with ideologies. Life is a beautifully balanced system. War is a punishment for implacability. Peace flows from forgiveness of sins. [...]